Is Assassin's Creed 3 better then AC2, BH, Rev?

I've played every AC game and loved them (although Revelations was kind of meh compared to the rest) but I still haven't had a chance to play 3 since I've been preoccupied with other games. Was wondering how it ranks compared to the others? For me my favorites in order:

It's different. If you are looking for the open-world sandbox assassinations, you'll still have that. Connor is a different character and the time period is different, and the tone of the story is different. There is not so much humor in Connor's story as in Ezio's.

Haytham is easily my favorite character in any AC game, and I couldn't agree more about Connor being a downgrade. Personally I loved AC3 as it's about one of my favorite periods of history. It's easy to be hard on Connor though after having 3 games to see the growth of Ezio, I don't think they plan on doing anything more with him considering how AC3 turned out however.

The thing I enjoyed about 3 over Brotherhood/Revelations is that you actually assassinated people who were known and important. In 2 (minus the final guy), they were all just no names really. Don't get me wrong though, I LOVED 2. I actually prefer it over 3.
2 for a few reasons. All the different places were really interesting, and then getting to Rome at the end and just seeing it but not being able to go to it created such a feeling of mystery and expansiveness. It also showed growth of a character as well.
3 had growth, but a PAINFULLY long intro. I'm talking sequences 1-5 are all introduction pretty much (12 seqs). The open world feeling and hunting was great, with snow being pretty cool and whatnot...but the locale just does not interest me at all. I'd really like to go to Boston in real life, but playing there and New York just wasn't that great.
I'm huge fan of ancient history, so seeing Ubisoft's re-constructions and weaving the assassin/templar storyline into those worlds (1-Rev) was terrific. Going to places like Jerusalem and Florence, and traveling through Forli...it felt so cool. 1 & 2 also focused on being sneaky and learning about your targets which I really liked. Maybe it was just the location, or the lack of trying to be really sneaky in the 3rd, I'm not sure. On another note, the graphics and animations are AWESOME. The crafting system leaves much to be desired though.

Actually turned into quite a wall of text; hope you can read it clearly. I believe I kind of ranted there...

"We all make choices, but in the end our choices make us." - Andrew Ryan

I thought that AC3 was the worst game in the series, actually. As others have said, Connor is the most bland character, and overall the game just isn't as good as the others. The new setting is neat, yeah, but it doesn't seem like they put as much effort into it as the past installments.

Well, gameplay wise it's pretty solid if you ask me, but story wise it's quite lacking compared to the AC 2 series. Like other people said, Haytham really was the most interesting and likeable character out of the whole thing, I really enjoyed playing as him even though it was just 4 sequences. Connor isn't a bad character, but he lacks personality and he doesn't show much emotion toward things which turns him into a very dull main character compared to Ezio.

Other than Haytham and Connor, there really isn't any other characters that I cared of, we had huge characters like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, but I just didn't feel like you connected to them the way you did with characters in the AC 2 series, which is a shame.

Another thing that I think was lacking compared to the previous titles was the cities, I understand that they might be correct for time period, but man are they underwhelming compared to Jerusalem, Damascus, Rome and the list goes on.

If you loved the other AC titles, then you will for sure enjoy AC 3 too, but don't expect it to be the best one atleast story wise.

The gameplay, setting, and story pales in comparison to the previous titles. Connor is just so damn boring and stupid. I wish the game was about Haytham instead.

This ^

AC3 is the first AC game i havent finished, got bored about halfway through.

Having to run around lost in the forest for ages got boring, the ship combat was awesome though.

"Heresy is like a garden weed, it won't stop feeding until you... BURN THE WHOLE DAMN GARDEN WITH A FLAMER, BURN IT, BURN IT TO HELL!!!!!" "Is there a wittle puppy in the garden? ITS A DAEMON! BURN IT!"

so far (for me anyway) i like it way better than revelations. revelations just seemed like one too many with ezio. AC2 was great because it expanded so much on what AC1 did. brotherhood was the high point of the series imo. it took me a minute to get into it but once i did i couldnt put it down. havent felt like that since.

I didnt like this game : / I thought 2-revelations had a better story. the ending just kinda bugged me esp cause it was supposed to "end desmonds story". there are plenty who like it better though the game is buggy. Id give it a try still this is just my opinion though theres plenty of people that like it

I haven't finished AC3 or ACR yet, so after first impressions (halfway through the games):

ACB > AC2 / AC3 > ACR > AC1.

Not better than Brotherhood, which in my opinion is the best of the series, I absolutely love Ezio as character and the setting (Rome) and size of the world felt just right in ACB. It's definitely better than Revelations which was just unnecessary extension to Ezio's story (which could easily have been finished in that AC:Embers animation, without Reveleations ever happening). AC2 is kind of a classic game so it's difficult to compare AC3 to that, AC3 has a wider and more varied world but I think the story and setting are better in AC2 (or more interesting at least, I think if you're really interested in Americas history it could beat AC2). I think AC1 is the worst of the series, it was great if you played first when it was released, but I played it only after I had played AC2 (or even ACB) and it felt so sub par compared to the later games.

AC3 is biggest piece of shit of 2012 together Ghost Recon: Future Soldier(I bought both of em). Both are developed and published by Ubisoft(I guess) and both are ported to PC by Ubisoft Kiev. Both games are ported very badly to PC to decrease cost and make more money. Now, I am fan of AC series and bought every game since AC1. AC1 was flawed in terms of game design but it was not flawed technically. AC3, however, flawed both in terms of game design and coding(I bought on PS3 as well as played on PC). I made a review of game in AC3 megathread and quite few people agreed with me. It's a truemaster shit. I will never ever never buy another Ubisoft game again instead(I am their long-term customer since Prince of Persia: Sands of Time) I will crack the fuck out of their games because this is true insult to us, AC fans. AC games are cash-grabs instead of innovative games since AC:R.

It really pains me when you pay for full price and get a cracked-quality game with tons of bugs.

- I miss the whole recruiting stuff. I did it once because it was part of the storyline, and I also did the assassins signal once because it was part of the storyline. never used it since.
- I am 100% disappointed for the vendors not making any sense. I did not upgrade my gear ONCE throughout the entire game. this was one part of the motivation for me with ac2, brotherhood and revelations. I ended up with over 100k and I may have bought that one dagger that was better than my tomahawk, but that's pretty much it.
- the controls were made easier. but I also miss them. I liked the active-blocking-and-then-counter stuff. now it's more ore less smashing one button and try to hit it in the right millisecond.
- I completely hate the fact that you can dress in whatever color you want, but in the cutscenes you have the default clothes on. bulls**t.
- since the area is more spread and not a big, clustered city like Rom or Istanbul were, the actual main part of AC - climbing the shit out of the city - is not as motivating as it used to be. and the eased fast traveling makes you just fast travel wherever you want to be instead of running over all the roofs.
- climbing on and through trees is fun. but you soon realize, it is only possible with a certain setup of trees. you often end up running in a half-circle through the trees and even though traveling by tree is faster than on the ground, it ends up taking longer anyways. it is not really a free running.
- towers and trees and thus "lifting the fog on the map" is shit. imagine the map as big as your screen, and by synchronizing with a tower or a tree you make a 2 inch circle around your position visible, along with two feathers and one challenge-stuff-thing. that is demotivating as its best. you can discover everything by simply running everything manually, but that is not fun either.
- and last but not least, compared to Rom and Istanbul, whereas you - theoretically - could discover everything after the first two hours of story, and could do all side quests, and do like everything the fuck you want to... you can't do that here. firstly, because the first like 10? hours or so you aren't even fully grown connor or even connor yourself, then you can't go to boston yet, then you can't go to NYC yet, you feel so limited at the start... and once you can go everywhere, seriously, the main story line is more fun than anything else by that point.
- the end of desmond's story. it's like you play the game for 30-40 hours to finally see the grand finale, and then you get smashed in the face and it is over. I sat in front of my monitor and I was like "that's it? dafuq?". I really was disappointed. still fighting with my inner turmoil whether this or Mass Effect 3 was the worst ending in a video game ever.
- I almost forgot: playing the mill game (it's really hard, your opponents always make their best move, regardless of what you do) and opening chests. that minigame to open chests is just retarded. after all, I found a way how to manage it, but it still is retarded. they could've done this with buttons (press the right combinations) or something, but no, they choose to do it via analogsticks and (even more retarded) for mouse/keyboard players with the mouse via x and y axis. and if you move the x axis by 1 mm after you locked it and you try the y axis, you have to start all over again. this is frustrating in any way imaginable.

that's about the bad part of AC3.
what is good then?
well:
- graphics + atmosphere. you see it every now and then that it is not top of the hill graphics anymore, but it looks damn good and you really feel like you are back then in that country.
- size: the size of that one region-in-the-middle is HUGE. try to circle it by foot once, you'll take half an hour at least. and then there is boston, nyc, and your homeland, and all of them are really big as well. I'd say, AC3 has more area to discover, than brotherhood and revelations together. and both of them were immense.
- the story of connor: besides the fact, that it takes some time before it really gets the drive, the story is phenomenal. plots here, plots there, twists here, twists there, bad events here, good events here, it is just genius.
- the story of desmond: real good ending of the complete desmond story. you get ALOT of background information, you will do more than just run around in 10y distance of the animus. it could've been perfect. if it would not have been for the very end itself (see above). although I really liked these animus-part-story-thingy from revelations.
- all the characters within (connor's) the story. you feel with connor, with haythem, with that old dude (I forgot his name), even the guy I was collecting the relics for seems reasonable. all the guys on your homestead, you mostly rescue them first, then they live with you. you have a connection with them, and after all, a reason why they live there.
- sea fights. easily the best feature of AC3. if I could've decided, they could've make the game a sea fight simulator. They should sell the engine and make a pirates-of-the-carribean-game. it would be 100% plausible.

tl;dr
I played it for the story, and the story (except desmond's ending) is extremely motivating and fun. there are also some sidequests and -actions who are really fun. the graphics are (considered the age of the engine) superb, the atmosphere comes close to far cry 3 (each in its own setting of course). and because of this, AC3 is a really, really good game. but the downsides are too major to make it the best game of the series. I'd rate it revelations >= brotherhood > ac2 > ac3 > ac1. AC1 was sometimes just too hard. AC2 made a lot things better, and bro and rev both improved the things what AC2 made already well. AC3 made after all not THAT much major things wrong (the fight controls being the one major thing that comes to my mind), but a whole lot of minor things, which adds up at the end. it's like telling the devs, don't screw shit up that worked for 3 games, but they did nevertheless just for the sake of "changing stuff".

tl;dr of tl;dr:
I would've liked it more, if the game would've been the same as brotherhood and/or revelations (mechanics/gameplay wise), with the only change being some animations, the graphics, and the story ofc.